Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KAÇIU AND KOTORRI v. ALBANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Six month period) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (19)

• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 33192/07

  The assessment of this level depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 162, Series A no. 25, and Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-IX).

  While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 94, ECHR 2006-IX; Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140; and Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 9 June 1998, § 34, Reports 1998-IV).

  But must the treatment be qualified as torture before a violation of Article 3 can also lead to a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Two Grand Chamber judgments have either left open the question whether the use of real evidence obtained by an act classified as inhuman and degrading treatment, but falling short of torture, always rendered a trial unfair (Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 106-07, ECHR 2006-IX) or avoided answering directly the question in general terms, due to the particular circumstances of the case and the lack of a causal link between the prohibited methods of investigation and the applicant's conviction and sentence (Gäfgen, cited above, § 180).

• EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

  SAVITSKYY v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 33192/07

  In addition to the severity of the treatment, there is a purposive element to torture, as recognised also in the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which in Article 1 defines torture in terms of the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering for such purposes as obtaining information or a confession, punishing, intimidating, coercing, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity (see Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, § 94, ECHR 2000-VIII; Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 149, 26 January 2006; and, Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 127, 26 July 2012).

  The standard of proof, namely "beyond reasonable doubt", and the related evidentiary considerations set out above, must, in my opinion, be very carefully applied when it comes to allegations of torture - the gravest form of treatment proscribed by Article 3 - and therefore cannot be established by presumption, inference nor likeliness (compare with Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 91-106, ECHR 1999-V; Gäfgen, cited above, § 94; Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, §§ 39-50, 59-61 and 80-86, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, §§ 15-18 and 129-139, 26 July 2012; Virabyan v. Armenia, no. 40094/05, §§ 17-29 and 31, 2 October 2012; and, Lenev v. Bulgaria, no. 41452/07, §§ 111-18, 4 December 2012).

• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 40094/05

  VIRABYAN v. ARMENIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 33192/07

  The standard of proof, namely "beyond reasonable doubt", and the related evidentiary considerations set out above, must, in my opinion, be very carefully applied when it comes to allegations of torture - the gravest form of treatment proscribed by Article 3 - and therefore cannot be established by presumption, inference nor likeliness (compare with Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 91-106, ECHR 1999-V; Gäfgen, cited above, § 94; Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, §§ 39-50, 59-61 and 80-86, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, §§ 15-18 and 129-139, 26 July 2012; Virabyan v. Armenia, no. 40094/05, §§ 17-29 and 31, 2 October 2012; and, Lenev v. Bulgaria, no. 41452/07, §§ 111-18, 4 December 2012).

 
• EGMR, 15.05.2008 - 7178/03

  DEDOVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 33192/07

  The standard of proof, namely "beyond reasonable doubt", and the related evidentiary considerations set out above, must, in my opinion, be very carefully applied when it comes to allegations of torture - the gravest form of treatment proscribed by Article 3 - and therefore cannot be established by presumption, inference nor likeliness (compare with Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 91-106, ECHR 1999-V; Gäfgen, cited above, § 94; Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, §§ 39-50, 59-61 and 80-86, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, §§ 15-18 and 129-139, 26 July 2012; Virabyan v. Armenia, no. 40094/05, §§ 17-29 and 31, 2 October 2012; and, Lenev v. Bulgaria, no. 41452/07, §§ 111-18, 4 December 2012).
• EGMR, 04.03.2003 - 63486/00

  POSOKHOV c. RUSSIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 33192/07

  The phrase "established by law" covers not only the legislation concerning the establishment and jurisdiction of a tribunal (see Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114, 28 November 2002), but also the composition of the bench in each case (see Buscarini v. San Marino (dec.), no. 31657/96, 4 May 2000, and Posokhov v. Russia, no. 63486/00, § 39, ECHR 2003 IV).
• EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 31657/96

  BUSCARINI contre SAINT-MARIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 33192/07

  The phrase "established by law" covers not only the legislation concerning the establishment and jurisdiction of a tribunal (see Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, § 114, 28 November 2002), but also the composition of the bench in each case (see Buscarini v. San Marino (dec.), no. 31657/96, 4 May 2000, and Posokhov v. Russia, no. 63486/00, § 39, ECHR 2003 IV).
• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  TOMASI c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 33192/07

  I also wonder whether the judgment in this case sends the wrong message, namely that simple allegations of ill-treatment by applicants, as long as they have not been investigated at national level - with the result that there is a violation of the procedural limb of Article 3 - automatically lead to a substantive violation of Article 3 on account of torture?! My reading of the case-law of this Court is that, in such cases, the failure of the authorities to provide a plausible explanation for injuries sustained by a person under their control leads to a conclusion that there has also been a substantive violation of Article 3 (see, among others, Tomasi v. France, 27 August 1992, §§ 108-11, Series A no. 241-A; Ribitsch v. Austria, 4 December 1995, § 34, Series A no. 336; and, Selmouni, cited above, § 87).
• EGMR, 19.06.2003 - 28490/95

  HULKI GÜNES v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 33192/07

  For judgment accepting the exclusionary rule in cases where the violation of Article 3 ha not been qualified as torture, see Hulki Günes v. Turkey, no. 28490/95, ECHR 2003-VII (extracts); Söylemez v. Turkey, no. 46661/99, 21 September 2006; and, Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, 17 October 2006.
• EGMR, 22.06.2000 - 32492/96

  COEME AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 33192/07

  A "tribunal" referred to in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention must also satisfy a series of other conditions, including the independence of its members and the length of their terms of office, impartiality and the existence of procedural safeguards (see Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 99, ECHR 2000-VII).
• EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 46661/99

  SÖYLEMEZ c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 33192/07

  For judgment accepting the exclusionary rule in cases where the violation of Article 3 ha not been qualified as torture, see Hulki Günes v. Turkey, no. 28490/95, ECHR 2003-VII (extracts); Söylemez v. Turkey, no. 46661/99, 21 September 2006; and, Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, 17 October 2006.
• EGMR, 13.11.2007 - 33771/02

  DRIZA c. ALBANIE
• EGMR, 28.11.2002 - 58442/00

  LAVENTS c. LETTONIE
• EGMR, 26.04.1979 - 6538/74

  SUNDAY TIMES c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 1)
• EGMR, 04.12.1995 - 18896/91

  RIBITSCH c. AUTRICHE
• EGMR, 28.06.2007 - 36549/03

  Recht auf ein faires Strafverfahren (Beweisverwertungsverbot; Verwertungsverbot …
• EGMR, 13.07.2010 - 35208/06

  PARNOV v. MOLDOVA
• EGMR, 27.06.2000 - 21986/93

  Verursachung des Todes eines Gefangenen in türkischer Haft - Umfang der …
• EGMR, 12.07.1988 - 10862/84

  SCHENK c. SUISSE
• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95

  KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• EGMR, 05.03.2024 - 60569/09

  LEKA v. ALBANIA

  They relied on a number of the Court's judgments that addressed the question of an applicant's right to be represented by a lawyer (notably, Laska and Lika, cited above; Kaçiu and Kotorri v. Albania, nos. 33192/07 and 33194/07, 25 June 2013; Dvorski v. Croatia [GC], no. 25703/11, ECHR 2015; and Simeonovi v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 21980/04, 12 May 2017).
• EGMR, 24.01.2019 - 76577/13

  Italien verurteilt: 18.000 Euro Entschädigung für Amanda Knox

  À cet égard, la Cour ne peut que constater que, malgré les plaintes réitérées de la requérante, les traitements qu'elle a dénoncés n'ont fait l'objet d'aucune enquête (Kaçiu et Kotorri c. Albanie, nos 33192/07 et 33194/07, § 94, 25 juin 2013 ; voir aussi les conclusions du tribunal de Pérouse dans le cadre de son jugement du 22 mars 2013, paragraphe 101).
• EGMR, 08.10.2019 - 13128/06

  URAZBAYEV c. RUSSIE

  La Cour s'accorde à dire avec le Gouvernement qu'elle n'a pas compétence pour établir si U., qui n'a pas introduit de requête en vertu de l'article 34 de la Convention, a subi des mauvais traitements en violation de l'article 3 (voir, a contrario, Kaçiu et Kotorri c. Albanie, nos 33192/07 et 33194/07, 25 juin 2013, Kormev c. Bulgarie, no 39014/12, § 79, 5 octobre 2017, et Golubyatnikov et Zhuchkov c. Russie, nos 44822/06 et 49869/06, 9 octobre 2018 - les affaires où la Cour a établi que les dépositions incriminantes avaient été extorqués en violation de l'article 3 aux témoins qui étaient par ailleurs aussi requérants, et a constaté violation de l'article 6 de ce fait).

 
• EGMR, 02.07.2019 - 63896/12

  SHALA c. SUISSE

  Ainsi, il est de jurisprudence constante que le maintien dans le dossier pénal de preuves obtenues d'un coaccusé ou d'un témoin au moyen de la torture ou d'un traitement dégradant prive d'équité cette procédure dans son ensemble (Mindadze et Nemsitsveridze c. Géorgie, no 21571/05, § 142, 1er juin 2017, et Kaçiu et Kotorri c. Albanie, nos 33192/07 et 33194/07, §§ 126- 128, 25 juin 2013).
• EGMR, 17.02.2015 - 48915/10

  NICULESCU v. ROMANIA

  The Court also notes that even if the applicant was arrested, she was so in relation to a number of other offences for which she was indicted, she was never detained in relation to the offences that are the subject matter of this application (see, per a contrario, Kaçiu and Kotorri v. Albania, nos. 33192/07 and 33194/07, § 150, 25 June 2013 and Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 187, 22 May 2012).
• EGMR, 20.09.2018 - 39708/13

  SHCHERBAKOV v. UKRAINE

  There is no domestic finding or finding of this Court establishing that Mi. was ill-treated (contrast, respectively, Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, §§ 29 and 58, ECHR 2007-III, and Kaçiu and Kotorri v. Albania, nos. 33192/07 and 33194/07, §§ 99 and 129, 25 June 2013) and no proof of ill-treatment.